← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 02773-2025 Sala Segunda de la Corte · Sala Segunda de la Corte · 2025
OutcomeResultado
The order rejecting the cassation appeal is overturned, the cassation appeal for inadmission is admitted, and the parties are summoned to present their arguments.Se revoca el auto denegatorio del recurso de casación y se admite el recurso de casación por inadmisión, emplazando a las partes para que presenten sus alegatos.
SummaryResumen
The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court overturned a ruling that had dismissed a cassation appeal as untimely in a family proceeding, applying a 'pro-appeal' interpretation and guaranteeing access to effective judicial protection. The Third Section of the Family Court had rejected the cassation appeal based on Articles 107 and 108 of the Family Procedure Code (Law 9747), which establish a ten-day deadline. However, the Chamber considered that, given the interpretive ambiguity of Transitory Provisions 1 and 2 of the Family Procedure Code, and for the sake of applying constitutional norms and international human rights instruments, the norm favoring appeal admissibility should be chosen. In this specific case, the fifteen-day deadline established in former Article 596 of the Civil Procedure Code allowed access to the appeal. Additionally, the Chamber determined that the 'appellate review' filed by the defendant against the denial order should be construed as a cassation appeal for inadmission, and that it had been filed timely. Therefore, the cassation appeal for inadmission was admitted, and the parties were summoned to present their arguments before the Chamber.La Sala Segunda de la Corte revocó un auto que rechazó por extemporáneo un recurso de casación en un proceso de familia, aplicando una interpretación 'pro-recurso' y garantizando el acceso a la tutela judicial efectiva. La Sección Tercera del Tribunal de Familia había denegado el recurso de casación con fundamento en los artículos 107 y 108 del Código Procesal de Familia (Ley 9747), que establecen un plazo de diez días. Sin embargo, la Sala consideró que, dada la ambigüedad interpretativa de los transitorios 1 y 2 del Código Procesal de Familia, y en aras de aplicar la normativa constitucional y los instrumentos internacionales sobre derechos humanos, debía optarse por la norma que favorece la admisibilidad del recurso. En este caso concreto, el plazo de quince días establecido en el anterior artículo 596 del Código Procesal Civil brindaba acceso al recurso. Adicionalmente, la Sala determinó que la 'apelación' presentada por la parte demandada contra el auto denegatorio debía interpretarse como un recurso de casación por inadmisión, y que se había interpuesto en tiempo. Por tanto, se admitió el recurso de casación por inadmisión y se ordenó emplazar a las partes para que presenten sus alegatos ante la Sala.
Key excerptExtracto clave
"For this Chamber, by guaranteeing access to effective judicial protection, inherent to the appeal, the rule that ensures its admissibility rather than its rejection must be applied, and it is for this reason that the order rejecting the cassation appeal filed by the defendant is overturned, and the parties are summoned to assert their rights before the Chamber within three days.""Para la Sala, garantizando el acceso a la tutela judicial efectiva, propia del recurso, se debe aplicar la norma que garantice su admisibilidad y no su rechazo y, es por esto, que se revoca el auto denegatorio del recurso de casación formulado por el demandado y, se emplaza a las partes para que, dentro de tercero día hagan valer sus derechos ante la Sala."
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"ante la ambigüedad de interpretación que, reseñamos, y que pueden producir los transitorios 1 y 2 del Código Procesal de Familia, es necesario decantarse por una interpretación “pro-recurso” que potencialice el acceso a la tutela judicial efectiva"
"given the interpretive ambiguity that we have noted, and which Transitional Provisions 1 and 2 of the Family Procedure Code may produce, it is necessary to lean towards a 'pro-appeal' interpretation that enhances access to effective judicial protection"
Considerando III
"ante la ambigüedad de interpretación que, reseñamos, y que pueden producir los transitorios 1 y 2 del Código Procesal de Familia, es necesario decantarse por una interpretación “pro-recurso” que potencialice el acceso a la tutela judicial efectiva"
Considerando III
"garantizando el acceso a la tutela judicial efectiva, propia del recurso, se debe aplicar la norma que garantice su admisibilidad y no su rechazo"
"by guaranteeing access to effective judicial protection, inherent to the appeal, the rule that ensures its admissibility rather than its rejection must be applied"
Considerando III
"garantizando el acceso a la tutela judicial efectiva, propia del recurso, se debe aplicar la norma que garantice su admisibilidad y no su rechazo"
Considerando III
Full documentDocumento completo
Applying precisely that guiding principle to the appellate interpretation, the “cassation appeal for inadmissibility” (recurso de casación por inadmisión) filed by the defendant in this case must first be admitted. Upon analyzing what occurred, the appellant files said appeal because his cassation appeal against Voto número 281-2025, issued at 10:42 a.m. on March 17, 2025, by the Third Section of the Family Court (Sección Tercera del Tribunal de Familia), was denied. The reasons for that denial were justified by the untimeliness of the appeal, given that current articles 107 and 108 of the Family Procedure Code (Código Procesal de Familia) establish that this appeal must have been filed before the Court within a period of 10 days (order issued at 1:06 p.m. on April 10, 2025). The defendant filed a motion to reconsider (recurso de revocatoria) and an “appeal” (apelación) against that decision, and the “appeal” (which was actually a cassation appeal for inadmissibility) was again rejected by order issued at 8:57 a.m. on May 9, 2025, based on article 108 of the Family Procedure Code. In the opinion of this Chamber, the Court should have interpreted that this “appeal” essentially sought to challenge the denial of the cassation appeal for being untimely; that is, it should have interpreted it as a cassation appeal for inadmissibility, and whether based on current article 104 of the current Family Procedure Code or based on former article 583 of Law 7130, in both scenarios, it should have referred it to this Chamber for its consideration, but, as we see, it did not do so, which led the appellant to file the cassation appeal for inadmissibility before this Chamber. Now, for the purposes of the filing period for the “cassation appeal for inadmissibility,” which is three days under both sets of regulations (with the sole variation being the body before which this appeal is filed), this office considers that the filing of that “appeal” against the denial order before the Third Section of the Family Court serves as the date on which the cassation appeal for inadmissibility should have been filed, which allows its filing to be assessed as timely. Having overcome that obstacle, and in the interest of applying all the cited constitutional provisions and international instruments, the Chamber considers that, given the ambiguity of interpretation we have outlined, which may arise from Transitory Provisions 1 and 2 of the Family Procedure Code, it is necessary to adopt a “pro-appeal” (pro-recurso) interpretation that enhances access to effective judicial protection (tutela judicial efectiva). Therefore, depending on the specific case, it is appropriate to apply the procedural rules (former or current) that provide access to the cassation appeal. In this specific case, the denial of the appeal centers on “untimeliness,” given that the filing period is 10 days under article 107 of Law 9747, and 15 days under former article 596, first paragraph, of the former Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), and it was based on the first scenario that the Third Section of the Family Court decided to deny the appeal. For this Chamber, ensuring access to the effective judicial protection inherent in the appeal requires applying the rule that guarantees its admissibility and not its rejection, and it is for this reason that the order denying the cassation appeal filed by the defendant is revoked, and the parties are summoned to assert their rights before this Chamber within the third day.
Now, regarding the time limit for filing the "appeal for cassation due to inadmissibility" ("recurso de casación por inadmisión"), which is three days under both regulations (with the sole variation being the body before which that appeal is filed), this office considers that the filing of that "appeal" ("apelación") against the denial order before the Third Section of the Family Court (Sección Tercera del Tribunal de Familia) complies with being the date on which the cassation due to inadmissibility should have been filed, which allows its filing to be assessed as timely. Once that hurdle has been overcome, and in the interest of applying all the cited constitutional provisions and international instruments, the Court (Sala) considers that, given the ambiguity of interpretation that we have outlined, and which transitory provisions 1 and 2 of the Family Procedural Code (Código Procesal de Familia) may produce, it is necessary to opt for a "pro-appeal" ("pro-recurso") interpretation that enhances access to effective judicial protection; in light of this, and depending on the specific case, the procedural rules (former or current) that provide access to the cassation appeal must be applied. In this specific case, the denial of the appeal is centered on "extemporaneousness" ("extemporaneidad"), given that the filing period is 10 days, based on section 107 of Law 9747, and 15 days, based on the former section 596, paragraph 1 of the former Civil Procedural Code (Código Procesal Civil), and it was based on the first scenario that the Third Section of the Family Court decided to deny the appeal.
For the Panel, ensuring access to effective judicial protection, inherent to the remedy, the rule that guarantees its admissibility—and not its rejection—must be applied, and it is for this reason that the order denying the appeal for judicial review (recurso de casación) filed by the defendant is revoked, and the parties are summoned so that, within three days, they may assert their rights before the Panel." Now, regarding the time limit for filing the “appeal for review due to inadmissibility (recurso de casación por inadmisión),” which is three days under both sets of regulations (with the sole variation being the body before which that appeal is filed), this office considers that the filing of that “appeal (apelación)” of the denial order before the Third Section of the Family Court (Sección Tercera del Tribunal de Familia) complies with being filed on the date on which the appeal for review due to inadmissibility should have been filed, which allows its timeliness to be assessed. Once that obstacle has been overcome, and in furtherance of the application of all the cited constitutional provisions and international instruments, the Chamber considers that, given the ambiguity of interpretation that we have outlined, and which transitory provisions 1 and 2 of the Family Procedural Code (Código Procesal de Familia) may produce, it is necessary to opt for a “pro-appeal (pro-recurso)” interpretation that maximizes access to effective judicial protection; accordingly, and depending on the specific case, the procedural rule (former or current) that provides access to the appeal for review (recurso de casación) should be applied. In this specific case, the denial of the appeal is based on “untimeliness (extemporaneidad),” given that the filing period is 10 days, pursuant to article 107 of Law 9747 (ley 9747), and 15 days, based on the former article 596, paragraph 1, of the former Civil Procedural Code (Código Procesal Civil), and it was based on the first hypothesis that the Third Section of the Family Court decided to deny the appeal. For the Chamber, in guaranteeing access to effective judicial protection inherent to the appeal, the rule that guarantees its admissibility and not its rejection must be applied, and it is for this reason that the order denying the appeal for review filed by the defendant is revoked, and the parties are summoned so that, within three days, they may assert their rights before the Chamber."
"III.- Aplicando precisamente ese norte en la interpretación recursiva, es que debe ser, en primer término, admitido el “recurso de casación por inadmisión” formulado por el accionado en este caso. Si se analiza lo sucedido, el recurrente, plantea dicho recurso, en virtud que le fue denegado su recurso de casación contra el Voto número 281-2025, de las 10:42 horas del 17 de marzo de 2025, dictado por la Sección Tercera del Tribunal de Familia. Las razones de esa denegatoria se justificaron en la extemporaneidad del recurso, dado que, los actuales 107 y 108 del Código Procesal de Familia establecen que, ese recurso, debió de ser interpuesto ante el Tribunal en el plazo de 10 días (auto de las 13:06 horas del 10 de abril de 2025). La parte demandada formuló recurso de revocatoria y de “apelación” contra esa decisión y la “apelación” (que realmente era una casación por inadmisión) le fue nuevamente rechazada por auto de las 8:57 horas del 9 de mayo de 2025, con fundamento en el numeral 108 del Código Procesal de Familia. A criterio de la Sala, el Tribunal debió interpretar que, ese recurso de “apelación”, pretendía, esencialmente, cuestionar la denegatoria del recurso de casación por extemporáneo, o sea, interpretar, que se trataba de un recurso de casación por inadmisión y ya sea (con base a lo dispuesto por el actual 104 del actual Código Procesal de Familia o bien con fundamento en el anterior 583 de la ley 7130) y, en ambos supuestos, remitirlo a esta Sala para su conocimiento, pero, como vemos no lo hizo, lo que llevó a la parte recurrente a plantear la casación por inadmisión ante la Sala. Ahora bien, para efectos del plazo de la interposición del “recurso de casación por inadmisión”, que es de tres días en ambas normativas (con la única variación del órgano ante que se interpone ese recurso), este despacho considera que, la formulación de esa “apelación” del auto denegatorio ante la Sección Tercera del Tribunal de Familia, cumple con ser la fecha en la que la casación por inadmisión debía ser interpuesta, lo cual permite valorar su formulación en tiempo. Una vez superado ese escollo, y en aras de la aplicación de toda la normativa constitucional e instrumentos internacionales citados, la Sala considera que, ante la ambigüedad de interpretación que, reseñamos, y que pueden producir los transitorios 1 y 2 del Código Procesal de Familia, es necesario decantarse por una interpretación “pro-recurso” que potencialice el acceso a la tutela judicial efectiva, ante esto y, dependiendo del caso concreto, procede aplicar la normativa procesal (anterior o posterior) que brinde acceso al recurso de casación. En este caso concreto, la denegatoria del recurso se centra en “extemporaneidad”, dado que, el plazo de formulación es de 10 días, con fundamento en el numeral 107 de la ley 9747 y de 15 días, con base al anterior 596, párrafo 1° del anterior Código Procesal Civil, y fue con base a la primera hipótesis que la Sección Tercera del Tribunal de Familia decidió denegar el recurso. Para la Sala, garantizando el acceso a la tutela judicial efectiva, propia del recurso, se debe aplicar la norma que garantice su admisibilidad y no su rechazo y, es por esto, que se revoca el auto denegatorio del recurso de casación formulado por el demandado y, se emplaza a las partes para que, dentro de tercero día hagan valer sus derechos ante la Sala."
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.